The Misuse of Emotional Intelligence | Generated by AI
I don’t know when the term “emotional intelligence” (EQ) came about, but I remember it was already a thing back in middle school. One day, either my mother or a teacher said to me: “You have a high IQ, but you need to pay attention to your EQ too. Look at that classmate of yours—such high EQ, gets along with everyone.”
The “high-EQ” classmate she was referring to was actually the kind of person I disliked the most: showy, glib-tongued, phony, always showing off, and forming cliques. For these people to be labeled as “high EQ,” I have no idea whose idea it was or what standards they used. But even now, I’ve noticed that China is full of these “high-EQ” types.
According to the unwritten Chinese standards for EQ, if you’re kind, sincere, don’t lie, speak the truth, aren’t afraid to offend people, and don’t put on a show, then you’re “low EQ.” EQ has become a way to control everyone’s behavior. If you don’t do as I say, if you don’t obediently follow the crowd and fit in like everyone else, then you’re low EQ.
Speaking of EQ, I think this concept was invented just because there was already IQ (intelligence quotient). IQ itself isn’t some great thing either—I believe the people who came up with both IQ and EQ had ulterior motives. Can human intelligence really be evaluated through so-called IQ tests? How much do the designers of these tests really understand about human intelligence? There are jobs like this in the world: giving others scores. If everyone starts caring about those scores, you’ve gained the power to manipulate their thoughts and actions. It’s no different from a cult.
There are plenty of such labels in the world: if you don’t do as I say, I’ll slap a label on you. Some were invented by foreigners, but they’ve been amplified in China. I’ve lived in the US for so many years and still consume a lot of foreign media, but I’ve never heard foreigners mention IQ. This shows that while IQ was a foreign invention, hardly any foreigners care about it. Only Chinese people do—parents and teachers love telling you Einstein’s IQ was this or that (some number). Would Einstein be dumb enough to take someone else’s IQ test? Can a single number measure a person? People who believe in the IQ concept probably aren’t all that smart themselves.
Abroad, no one talks about EQ either, but the term “emotional intelligence” has exploded in China, even more so than IQ. At least IQ is “active” in direction. By “active,” I mean the standards for evaluating IQ are based on a person’s ability to understand the external world: person → world.
But EQ is entirely “passive.” By “passive,” I mean the standards for EQ depend completely on how others perceive you, not on how you perceive and discern others. So EQ is purely: others → you. Completely passive—this is a serious problem, and EQ has no fixed standard; it’s whatever anyone says it is.
A passive EQ standard only cares about “whether others accept you,” but a balanced EQ should also include “correctly judging whether others are worth liking or trusting.” So the so-called Chinese EQ puts oneself in a passive position, making those who care about it completely manipulated by others. They stop being themselves; they only care about how others see them.
According to Chinese EQ standards, if you want to be “high EQ,” you have to get others to approve of you, like you, flatter you… In short, you have to put on an act. It has nothing to do with how you perceive and discern others (you → others). Chinese EQ standards don’t include spotting others’ lies, judging their honesty or friendliness, sensing their character, detecting insincerity, spotting hypocrites, and so on. Think about it: these “active” abilities should be the main content of EQ to make it comparable to IQ. Even if IQ’s standards are absurd, it’s still active: person → world.
If we used active EQ standards, most Chinese people today would have extremely low EQ. It’s obvious that glib-tongued scammers can now spout nonsense on media without consequence. Content I can’t even listen to because of the tone or word choice gets not only heard but accepted and followed by many. Articles with clearly misleading titles get forwarded as truth. People I pegged as frauds twenty years ago now have millions of followers, still strutting around and cashing in on this “AI and blockchain era.” Worst of all, tons of people imitate them. With such poor acting skills, yet still drawing crowds.
Oily, slick talk has become a symbol of cleverness and high EQ. One day, I was eating at a restaurant, and a kid next to me was watching a video on essay writing class on his phone. Sitting too close, I overheard a lot. The teacher’s tone was the epitome of oily slickness—it ruined the whole vibe right away; he didn’t seem like someone who could teach literature at all. What kind of essays would kids write after listening to such a teacher from a young age?
Intuitively sensing that oily slickness lacks sincerity should be basic EQ, but sadly, most Chinese people can’t even reach that level. This kind of tone would be hard for most people abroad to accept, but in China, it thrives. Of course, I’m not saying sincere tone alone is enough, but at least others have to fake it well? In China, no faking needed—straight-up oily slickness gets accepted by many.
Chinese traditional culture has always treated society as a battlefield of intrigue, like a nonstop performance of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, scheming against others. There’s extreme lack of trust between people, including relatives and friends, even siblings. An old friend once told me he was improving his EQ by reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Years later, I realized he was no longer a friend. Everything he did was an act; he’d become untrustworthy. How could someone with such “high EQ” get exposed by me so easily? Because his acting was just too amateurish. But he still does well, fooling plenty of people.
Someone with slightly higher EQ should be able to spot “chicken soup” nonsense. A classic type is the repeated advice to be honest and a good person, so others will think you’re a good person. This scam fools most Chinese people, and even some foreigners. California IT companies always talk about “changing the world” and “making the world a better place”—lots of people buy it, so Californians’ EQ isn’t that high either. Also, I’ve noticed Americans generally have lower EQ than Europeans because they even believe in the “American Dream.”
Now, people often post polished photos on social media showing their “happy lives.” When talking about people around them, it’s always “Everyone treats me so well! So grateful!” Do you buy it? Lots of Chinese people do, which shows their EQ isn’t high enough. Once at a restaurant, a foreigner next to me said: “I see you Chinese are really good at editing photos—can you recommend some photo-editing apps?” I couldn’t tell if he genuinely wanted the apps or was being sarcastic. My EQ wasn’t enough to read his motive, but it’s undeniable that foreigners think “Chinese people love taking photos too much.”
So after all these years, China’s “EQ” has truly exploded. Not only are oily scammers flooding the internet, but most Chinese people’s EQ is so low they can’t discern any information at all. We really should reflect on the meaning of the word “emotional intelligence.”
This is a translation and explanation of the blog post from Wang Yin’s “Draft Book” (王垠的草稿本), originally published around 2020-2021 under the “Miscellany” category. Wang Yin, a software engineer and writer (known online as “Ke Sen”), critiques how EQ has been distorted in Chinese society to enforce conformity and superficial social skills, contrasting it with a more “active” form of emotional awareness that emphasizes discernment and authenticity. The post draws on personal anecdotes and cultural observations to argue that true EQ should involve judging others critically, not just seeking approval.
For the original (in Chinese): 情商